Some military retirees would have to switch to a more costly and less convenient health care plan if a Department of Defense proposal is finalized.Randy L. Rasmussen, The Oregonian

Changes in health care coverage have become as much a rite of fall as football and colorful foliage. So, to a large degree it is neither surprising nor unusual that the insurer providing coverage to military retirees in the West would shift some policyholders from one plan to another -- one that is more expensive and less convenient.

But the companies that bid on government contracts to provide health care services to veterans should be held to a standard that requires them to look at more than corporate efficiency when deciding how to administrate insurance plans. The men and women who risk their lives in service to their country deserve that, at the least.

The Department of Defense has been moving toward increasing service near military installations and reducing coverage options elsewhere since 2007. Many public and private employers have made similar moves to reduce the number of health care plans and to funnel patients into the ones that can be administered the most efficiently. In some cases, this is a legitimate way to reduce health care costs. But as efficient as the proposed change might be, it also is unfair.

Limiting the HMO-style service, called Tricare Prime, to areas near military health centers disproportionately hurts beneficiaries in Oregon, where the only centers are Coast Guard clinics in Astoria and North Bend. The reduction in coverage options also comes after a decade of heightened military deployment that has increased the demand for veterans services in Oregon and elsewhere.

The coverage changes would increase cost and decrease convenience for those who do not live close to treatment centers. These beneficiaries would be shifted from Tricare Prime to Tricare Standard, which requires a copay of 25 percent and requires more paperwork from patients. The changes won't affect active-duty military or their families, or retirees age 65 or over, but Pentagon officials have not provided other details.

Tuesday, the Oregon congressional delegation sent a letter to Dr. Jonathon Woodson, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, seeking further explanation and a discussion of alternatives. "We understand that there is concern about the costs associated with medical care for military members and retirees, but this proposal unfairly penalizes residents of selects states and areas," the letter states.

In fact, the proposed changes flunk the fairness test in ways beyond geography. Among those affected are recent retirees, the ones most likely to have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The changes also come at a time when many former military members, like the nation as a whole, are struggling economically.

The Department of Defense needs to call an audible and find a better way to save money.